Growth and physiological responses of canola (<i>Brassica napus</i>) to UV‐B and CO<sub>2</sub>under controlled environment conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few studies have investigated the interaction of ultraviolet (UV)‐B radiation and CO2concentration on plants. We studied the combined effects of UV‐B radiation and CO2concentration on canola (Brassica napuscv. 46A65) under four growth conditions – ambient CO2with UV‐B (control), elevated CO2with UV‐B, ambient CO2without UV‐B, and elevated CO2without UV‐B – to determine whether the adverse effects of UV‐B are mitigated by elevated CO2. Elevated CO2significantly increased plant height and seed yield, whereas UV‐B decreased them. Elevated CO2ameliorated the adverse effects of UV‐B in plant height. UV‐B did not affect the physical characteristics of leaf but CO2did. Certain flower and fruit characteristics were affected negatively by UV‐B and positively by CO2. UV‐B did not affect net photosynthesis, transpiration and stomatal conductance but decreased water use efficiency (WUE). Elevated CO2significantly increased net photosynthesis and WUE. Neither UV‐B nor CO2affected chlorophyll (Chl) fluorescence. UV‐B significantly decreased Chlband increased the ratio of Chla/b. Elevated CO2decreased only the ratio of Chla/b. UV‐B significantly increased UV‐absorbing compounds while CO2had no effect on them. Both UV‐B and CO2significantly increased epicuticular wax content. Many significant relationships were found between morphological, physiological, and chemical parameters. This study showed that elevated CO2can partially ameliorate some of the adverse effects of UV‐B radiation inB.napus.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".